Which Founding Fathers do you agree with? Signers of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Franklin

The Negro is best when held to labour by better and wiser men than himself.
--Benjamin Franklin, reprinted in White Man, Think Again!, Anthony Jacob (Reedy, West Virginia: Liberty Bell Publications) p. 329.

[Benjamin] Franklin had owned Negro servants as late as 1750, and it would appear that his desire to get rid of them was more a product of racial prejudice than humanitarianism.
--reprinted in The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, David Brion Davis, Cornell University Press: Ithaca, New York, 1966, p. 426.

The Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.
--Benjamin Franklin, Papers of Franklin, reprinted in White Over Black, Winthrop D. Jordan (University of North Carolina Press) 1968, p. 254.

Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawnys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my country, for such kind of partiality is natural to mankind.
--Benjamin Franklin, 1753, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, reprinted in A New Dictionary of Quotations, ed. H. L. Mencken (New York: Alfred A. Knopf) 1942, p. 842.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twodeeright6

and Dr. Benjamin Rush were both activists in the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society and the person who most inspired the Revolution and the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine was also a radical abolitionist.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration, in 1797 defined those of African-descent as the product of what he termed "Negritude". Instrumental in abolishing the African slave-trade, on the grounds that the nation was already overburdened by Negroes, Rush warned that "whites should not intermarry with them."

Quote:

Originally Posted by twodeeright6

George Washington freed his slaves upon his death and enlisted black freedmen and slaves in the Continental Army.

[George Washington] thought it immoral that 'happy and contented' slaves were frequently seduced by such agencies as the Society of Quakers into leaving their masters.
--Melvin Steinfield, Cracks in the Melting Pot, 2nd ed. (New York: Glencoe Press) 1973, p. 257.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twodeeright6

There was no uniformity of opinion among the Founding Fathers on issues of race. There is no mention of the words "white" or "black" anywhere in the Constitution. The only group specifically mentioned are "Indians not taxed." The Constitution mentions "free persons" and "other persons" but there were always free blacks who had worked off their indentures just like white indentured servants did.

The Declaration of Independence did refer to "the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

The primary author of the Constitution was James Madison. It just so happens that Madison was also the President of The American Society for the Colonization of Free People of Color whose sole purpose was to ship blacks back to Africa. The Society's Vice President was Henry Clay, and it was supported by Bushrod Washington, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, James Monroe, Stephen Douglas, John Randolph, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, General Winfield Scott, and U.S. Chief Justices John Marshal and Roger Taney. In 1816 this group passed a charter which referred to blacks as “a dangerous and useless part of the community, [as] a horde of miserable people subsisting by plunder, [as] a vile excrescence upon society, [as] mentally diseased, broken spirited, acted upon by no motives of honorable exertion, [and as] the most degraded, the most abandoned race on earth.”
--reprinted in The Negro in American Civilization by Nathaniel Weyl (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press) 1960, p. 53.

The notion that there were founders who looked upon blacks as equals is a supposition without merit or evidence.

The Negro is best when held to labour by better and wiser men than himself.
--Benjamin Franklin, reprinted in White Man, Think Again!, Anthony Jacob (Reedy, West Virginia: Liberty Bell Publications) p. 329.

[Benjamin] Franklin had owned Negro servants as late as 1750, and it would appear that his desire to get rid of them was more a product of racial prejudice than humanitarianism.
--reprinted in The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, David Brion Davis, Cornell University Press: Ithaca, New York, 1966, p. 426.

The Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.
--Benjamin Franklin, Papers of Franklin, reprinted in White Over Black, Winthrop D. Jordan (University of North Carolina Press) 1968, p. 254.

Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawnys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my country, for such kind of partiality is natural to mankind.
--Benjamin Franklin, 1753, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, reprinted in A New Dictionary of Quotations, ed. H. L. Mencken (New York: Alfred A. Knopf) 1942, p. 842.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration, in 1797 defined those of African-descent as the product of what he termed "Negritude". Instrumental in abolishing the African slave-trade, on the grounds that the nation was already overburdened by Negroes, Rush warned that "whites should not intermarry with them."

[George Washington] thought it immoral that 'happy and contented' slaves were frequently seduced by such agencies as the Society of Quakers into leaving their masters.
--Melvin Steinfield, Cracks in the Melting Pot, 2nd ed. (New York: Glencoe Press) 1973, p. 257.

The Declaration of Independence did refer to "the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

The primary author of the Constitution was James Madison. It just so happens that Madison was also the President of The American Society for the Colonization of Free People of Color whose sole purpose was to ship blacks back to Africa. The Society's Vice President was Henry Clay, and it was supported by Bushrod Washington, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, James Monroe, Stephen Douglas, John Randolph, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, General Winfield Scott, and U.S. Chief Justices John Marshal and Roger Taney. In 1816 this group passed a charter which referred to blacks as “a dangerous and useless part of the community, [as] a horde of miserable people subsisting by plunder, [as] a vile excrescence upon society, [as] mentally diseased, broken spirited, acted upon by no motives of honorable exertion, [and as] the most degraded, the most abandoned race on earth.”
--reprinted in The Negro in American Civilization by Nathaniel Weyl (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press) 1960, p. 53.

The notion that there were founders who looked upon blacks as equals is a supposition without merit or evidence.

That is a wonderful post. Isn't it nice that we can point to FACTS to back up what most white folks think. The pages of history don't lie.

No. That is incorrect. The Constitution cannot be altered. Amendments cannot infringe on the Rights in the Constitution. Amendments add additional rights. Amendments, like the 13th and 14th, can be repealed.

Yes, techincally that is correct. I should not have used the word "altered". I meant exactly what you said, 'amendments add aditional rights.'
Sure the 13th and 14th can be repealed, but so far they are not.

Quote:

Part of this Constitution means that Parts exist. It does not mean the whole has changed. The Constitution is still the Articles of the Constitution, a single document. An Amendment is it's own document. Amendments are separate from the Constitution document. Amendments are related to the Constitution and add additional Rights. Constitution is Part 1. Amendments are Part 2. There is no change of Part 1. Part 2 can be changed by adding on other Amendments, but no Amendment can alter Part 1.

Amendments can be changed but the Constitution cannot.

And then? I think everyone agrees that this is indeed the case. Do any of the amendments to the constitution act otherwise? Actually your last statement is incorrect. Amendments and Articles are the "Constitution". So the Amendment portion of the Constiution can be changed, but the Article section cannot.

White Resistance 14

Quote:

As per the United States Constitution itself, the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional and invalid for the following reasons:

1.) It was never ratified by three-fourth of all the States in the Union according to Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Out of 37 States, 16 had rejected it.

2.) Many of the States who were counted as ratifying it, were compelled to do so under duress of military occupation. Any legal act entered into under force duress, and coercion is automatically null and void.

3.) The fact that 23 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S.Senate, shows that the Joint Resolution proposing the Amendment was notsubmitted to or adopted by a constitutional Congress.

It was ratified, eventually. They opposed it at first, but does that make a difference?
You say that any legal act entered into under the force of duress is automatically void. Where is that written? If it is, please show me. By the way, how would "martial law" function if what you say is true? While it may be very unethical, I dont think the use of duress makes an act invalid. The largest reason for this is that it is quite debatable to what extent force was used. If the Southern states can secede from the Union, then the remaining states (and Federal Government) can bring them back in. I read alot about the recontruction acts awhile ago in a book called "The South Was Right" and it is clear that the military imposed recontrustion was not a fun thing, but neither was the Civil War. Article 1 Section 10 is a good reference for questions about the Southern state's secession.

More to the point, the 14th amendment has been ratified and used for a large part of America's young history. The problem is the interpretation of the 14th amemdment. The children of aliens were never suppose to be allowed citizenship; one of the several misuses of this amendment.

Yes, techincally that is correct. I should not have used the word "altered". I meant exactly what you said, 'amendments add aditional rights.'
Sure the 13th and 14th can be repealed, but so far they are not.

And then? I think everyone agrees that this is indeed the case. Do any of the amendments to the constitution act otherwise? Actually your last statement is incorrect. Amendments and Articles are the "Constitution". So the Amendment portion of the Constiution can be changed, but the Article section cannot.

White Resistance 14

It was ratified, eventually. They opposed it at first, but does that make a difference?
You say that any legal act entered into under the force of duress is automatically void. Where is that written? If it is, please show me. By the way, how would "martial law" function if what you say is true? While it may be very unethical, I dont think the use of duress makes an act invalid. The largest reason for this is that it is quite debatable to what extent force was used. If the Southern states can secede from the Union, then the remaining states (and Federal Government) can bring them back in. I read alot about the recontruction acts awhile ago in a book called "The South Was Right" and it is clear that the military imposed recontrustion was not a fun thing, but neither was the Civil War. Article 1 Section 10 is a good reference for questions about the Southern state's secession.

More to the point, the 14th amendment has been ratified and used for a large part of America's young history. The problem is the interpretation of the 14th amemdment. The children of aliens were never suppose to be allowed citizenship; one of the several misuses of this amendment.

There is no problem with interpretation of the 14th amendment. Section One of the 14th amendment states explicitedly that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
If Congress wants to change that to exclude the children of illegal aliens, they can pass a law that changes it...or amend the Constitution again to exclude children of illegals.
The Amendments are indeed integral parts of the US Constitution and Amendments DO in fact alter the original Constitution. For example, the original body of the Constititution did not allow for the direct election of US Senators by the people. That was changed by the 17th amendment and since then, Senators have been elected by the people, not by the legislatures of the various states. Only one amendment to the Constitution has been repealed by another amendment, prohibition of alcohol. It could happen again to other amendments but thus far, since 1789 only one amendment has been repealed.

The Negro is best when held to labour by better and wiser men than himself.
--Benjamin Franklin, reprinted in White Man, Think Again!, Anthony Jacob (Reedy, West Virginia: Liberty Bell Publications) p. 329.

[Benjamin] Franklin had owned Negro servants as late as 1750, and it would appear that his desire to get rid of them was more a product of racial prejudice than humanitarianism.
--reprinted in The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, David Brion Davis, Cornell University Press: Ithaca, New York, 1966, p. 426.

The Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.
--Benjamin Franklin, Papers of Franklin, reprinted in White Over Black, Winthrop D. Jordan (University of North Carolina Press) 1968, p. 254.

Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawnys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my country, for such kind of partiality is natural to mankind.
--Benjamin Franklin, 1753, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, reprinted in A New Dictionary of Quotations, ed. H. L. Mencken (New York: Alfred A. Knopf) 1942, p. 842.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration, in 1797 defined those of African-descent as the product of what he termed "Negritude". Instrumental in abolishing the African slave-trade, on the grounds that the nation was already overburdened by Negroes, Rush warned that "whites should not intermarry with them."

[George Washington] thought it immoral that 'happy and contented' slaves were frequently seduced by such agencies as the Society of Quakers into leaving their masters.
--Melvin Steinfield, Cracks in the Melting Pot, 2nd ed. (New York: Glencoe Press) 1973, p. 257.

The Declaration of Independence did refer to "the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

The primary author of the Constitution was James Madison. It just so happens that Madison was also the President of The American Society for the Colonization of Free People of Color whose sole purpose was to ship blacks back to Africa. The Society's Vice President was Henry Clay, and it was supported by Bushrod Washington, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, James Monroe, Stephen Douglas, John Randolph, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, General Winfield Scott, and U.S. Chief Justices John Marshal and Roger Taney. In 1816 this group passed a charter which referred to blacks as “a dangerous and useless part of the community, [as] a horde of miserable people subsisting by plunder, [as] a vile excrescence upon society, [as] mentally diseased, broken spirited, acted upon by no motives of honorable exertion, [and as] the most degraded, the most abandoned race on earth.”
--reprinted in The Negro in American Civilization by Nathaniel Weyl (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press) 1960, p. 53.

The notion that there were founders who looked upon blacks as equals is a supposition without merit or evidence.

And there were Founding Fathers of different opinions. Abolition of slavery was the essential first step in the road to full racial equality under the law. It was that first step which grew as a political and moral concept during the lives of the Founders. The move for full legal equality came later in the 19th century, after most of the Founders had died.
For example:

"[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known... [N]ever in my life did I own a slave."-John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.

"[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil."-Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.

William Livingston, Governor of New Jersey, signer of the original Constitution:
"I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the abolition society in New York] and... I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke."

"That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part."
-John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.

"It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others...and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force."-John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, "Lectures on Moral Philosophy."

"Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law... The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all."-James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605.

"[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master."-Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.

"Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts... by agreeing to this duty."-Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.

and finally, from a former slave, Richard Allen:
Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania, but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. A close friend of Founding Father Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, he went on to become the founder of the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in America. In an early address entitled "To the People of Color," Allen reminded them:
"Many of the white people [who] have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal." -Richard Allen

I would probably make it one vote per household. I'd also make it so that potential voters had to prove literacy (in English, no less). People on welfare should not be allowed to vote.

I disagree about the household thing(I doubt I'd always agree with my hypothetical wife about whom to vote for) and the welfare thing(in a White nation, why shouldn't a fellah who's temporarily down-on-his-luck have a say?), but I do agree, wholeheartedly, with the literacy issue. I think it's insane that people who can't read can vote(or that people who can't speak English can vote. Wrong!).

It's funny that when certain Southern states introduced a literacy requirement in the 60s, it was seen as racist. Sounds like a tacit admission that blacks are more likely to illiterate!

Many of you here believe that since the founding fathers wanted the united states citizenship to be for whites only, then non-whites have no right to be living in the us. Is that right ?

Sure, why not. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing no one with an IQ of less than 125 vote, but that’s not going to happen. Somehow when 98% of the brothers can't pass it, it'll be racist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by somewhitedude22

Well, the founding fathers did not allow women to vote either, so using the same logic you must also believe that women should not be allowed to vote. If you don't belive that then you are nothing but a hypocrite.

And then again I don't think voting is all that important. I don't believe in democracy, I believe in a limited authoritan republic, like they did. If they believed in Democracy, then everyone could vote, all the time. Democracy can't work in places the size of most countries. Where has democracy gotten us? Oh, right. Here.